Anders F Björklund Wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
> 
> > FreeBSD breaks existing code, and so will OSX whenever darwin is removed. Now a developer already active on those platform is forced to somehow make sure both identifiers are in place until some unknown point in the future.
> > 
> > Since the version identifiers have been established in GDC a very long time ago, and they do follow an acceptable convention, I find it very unnecessary to change that.
> 
> One *could* argue the same thing about the introduced Posix identifier, versus the already established Unix so I'm not sure it's entirelly fair to bash DMD doing the same thing as Tango had already done before it...

That is a fair question to bring up, although I never got the impression that Unix was well established (except possibly from you :) ). It was also a feeling back then that Unix probably didn't describe the features as well as Posix did (an established standard followed by a wider range of systems than the older unix standards, and some of those really not wanting to be Unices).

Maybe there is also a difference between the time between 2005 and 6 and 2006 and 2009, but in the end it comes down to whether it makes sense to change the colour of this bikeshed (the Unix shed was larger and more visible and I claim it was worth the change); I don't think this change is worth it.

Lars Ivar

Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> About the "darwin" vs "OSX". There are other operating systems than Mac OS X that could use "darwin" as the version identifier if someone made a D compiler available. iPhone OS (this is just Mac OS X on the iphone and ipod thouch but it's called iPhone OS) and GNU/Darwin for example.

I wasn't aware of that. Would the OSX compiler and Phobos run out of the box on them?

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 19:32, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>
>> About the "darwin" vs "OSX". There are other operating systems than Mac OS X that could use "darwin" as the version identifier if someone made a D compiler available. iPhone OS (this is just Mac OS X on the iphone and ipod thouch but it's called iPhone OS) and GNU/Darwin for example.
>
> I wasn't aware of that. Would the OSX compiler and Phobos run out of the box on them?
>

You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would certainly not work there...

-- 
Anders Bergh

Walter Bright wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> They call it "Mac OS", then they add a version like this: "Mac OS 9". Then when the tenth versions came it happened to be built on a nix base/core (known as darwin) and they also added the X (probably to reflect the new nix base, "X" is also ten using roman numerals) making it: "Mac OS X". They still call it "mac os ten" (though some people, including me, like to call it "mac os x" and pronounce the "x" as in the letter "x"). After the "x" they add a name to reflect the version i.e. "Leopard" for version 10.5. Sometimes they refer to the os version with the name and sometimes with the version number.
> 
> Apple calls it "Mac OS X version 10.5".
> 
> There is little consistency in how Apple names their OSs, so there is no way to come up with a version identifier for it that is completely consistent.

There's a good word for them. They're Good Marketers. Now, in an honest man's world that is equivalent with Good Liars. (The definition being, whenever a liar is good at achieving his goal, and at the same time avoiding accusations of lying, then he's a Good Liar. We had a discussion about this in Elementary School, on the school yard. Of course, the bigger boys won, but that didn't mean that the rest of us would forget it, ever.)

So, in anticipation of how "the world goes", all we need is a table lookup. Apple this or that, translates to this or that Version.

Anders Bergh wrote:
> You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
> dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
> actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
> certainly not work there...

If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's appropriate to have a different version identifier.

Hello Walter,

> If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's
> appropriate to have a different version identifier.
> 

I'd assert the test should be if the systems are source code compatible.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Anders Bergh wrote:
>> You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
>> dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
>> actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
>> certainly not work there...
> 
> If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's appropriate to have a different version identifier.

So you're saying version(linux) shouldn't be defined on PPC or ARM Linux systems? After all, dmd/phobos binaries for Linux won't run on them...


(I agree with BCS; the test should be source code compatibility)

Frits van Bommel wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Anders Bergh wrote:
>>> You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of
>>> dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it
>>> actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would
>>> certainly not work there...
>>
>> If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's appropriate to have a different version identifier.
> 
> So you're saying version(linux) shouldn't be defined on PPC or ARM Linux systems? After all, dmd/phobos binaries for Linux won't run on them...
> 
> 
> (I agree with BCS; the test should be source code compatibility)

I meant if they were running on an x86 yet the binaries are different.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 02:18, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Anders Bergh wrote:
>>
>> You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would certainly not work there...
>
> If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's appropriate to have a different version identifier.
>

The current dmd binaries would run and work on PureDarwin as long as they don't use Cocoa or Carbon etc (which I doubt they do).

-- 
Anders Bergh

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Walter Bright <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Frits van Bommel wrote:
>>
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> Anders Bergh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You could probably make dmd run on some GNU/Darwin, but it's sort of dead. There's http://www.puredarwin.org/ but I'm not sure if it actually works yet. The iPhone is an ARM platform so dmd would certainly not work there...
>>>
>>> If dmd/phobos binaries for osx won't work on those machines, then it's appropriate to have a different version identifier.
>>
>> So you're saying version(linux) shouldn't be defined on PPC or ARM Linux systems? After all, dmd/phobos binaries for Linux won't run on them...
>>
>>
>> (I agree with BCS; the test should be source code compatibility)
>
> I meant if they were running on an x86 yet the binaries are different.
>

Isn't there powerpc osx as well ?